Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

The late aeolian period instruments were not nearly as good as today, or in their golden age, sometime before 1930. Today, the instruments (new) are apparently very very good, although I have not played or seen one to date. Younger is maybe not so good if it was Aeolian built. But Rank Piano is correct, as far as I know.

the burgett era M&Hs are exemplary instruments. my M&H Model A, circa 2000, is built like a sherman tank, full perimeter plate, renner action, patented tension resonator, and she tonally far outshone other instruments in her size range (IMHO). lots of bang for the buck.

A slightly different take on this: to me they sound quite different (the older Masons (i.e. from the early 20th century) compared to today's pianos). I think the new Masons are nice but don't have to my ear at least that amazing orchestral and singing quality and the subtlety found in the best of the older Masons. The newer pianos have a brash and sometimes overly obvious quality not to my liking.

I've recently looked at a 1980 BB. It's beautiful with a very wonderful sound, and the build quality seems fine. However, it has a Pratt-Reed action, which to me doesn't seem very responsive. Maybe it can be regulated to be more so, but I just couldn't play it. The dealer told me that it's already been regulated and that that's about as good as it's going to get (he agreed about the P-R action) Also, the keyboard is smaller than I'm used to. When compared to any other around it I could find, the keys were about a half-inch shorter from end (keyslip) to fallboard. I'm sure that made quite a difference in it's playability (at least for me anyway, a pro probably wouldn't have that much of a problem). Ultimately I had to pass on it because of that. The other aspects of the piano seemed just fine though.

I think it best to evaluate each instrument on its own merits, rather than over-generalizing vis a vis a given time period. My CC2 was made in 1960 and you couldn't get me to part with it for any amount of money. It is coming back from the dead slowly. I just got back the plated hardware today. It certainly uses lots of screws to hold things together, better than twice the amount of another piano I am restoring sitting side by side.

I'd like to second Sophia's thoughts. The pianos are very good but, to me, they sound nothing like vintage M & H instruments. Nothing like.

I feel that the new pianos must be intended to compete with Steinway, as they have a much bolder, virile and powerful sonority, with virtually nothing of the distinctive, perfumed color of the older instruments.

I've recently looked at a 1980 BB. It's beautiful with a very wonderful sound, and the build quality seems fine. However, it has a Pratt-Reed action, which to me doesn't seem very responsive. Maybe it can be regulated to be more so, but I just couldn't play it. The dealer told me that it's already been regulated and that that's about as good as it's going to get (he agreed about the P-R action) Also, the keyboard is smaller than I'm used to. When compared to any other around it I could find, the keys were about a half-inch shorter from end (keyslip) to fallboard. I'm sure that made quite a difference in it's playability (at least for me anyway, a pro probably wouldn't have that much of a problem). Ultimately I had to pass on it because of that. The other aspects of the piano seemed just fine though.

A 1980 Mason & Hamlin would have an Aeolian (Wessell, Nickel & Gross) action. Pratt Read was later in the decade. The 1980s were a period of transition for Mason & Hamlin, so the exact date is important.

I'd like to second Sophia's thoughts. The pianos are very good but, to me, they sound nothing like vintage M & H instruments. Nothing like.

I feel that the new pianos must be intended to compete with Steinway, as they have a much bolder, virile and powerful sonority, with virtually nothing of the distinctive, perfumed color of the older instruments.

Your comment made me wonder if the "vintage" Masons had the same "distinctive, perfumed color" when they were NEW. Guess we'll never know for sure.

In the meantime, a "bolder, virile and powerful sonority" is nothing to sneeze at. I will admit, however, that my 2003 BB can be a bit difficult to control at times. The sheer volume of sound with the piano lid fully raised can be quite overwhelming.

I've recently looked at a 1980 BB. It's beautiful with a very wonderful sound, and the build quality seems fine. However, it has a Pratt-Reed action, which to me doesn't seem very responsive. Maybe it can be regulated to be more so, but I just couldn't play it. The dealer told me that it's already been regulated and that that's about as good as it's going to get (he agreed about the P-R action) Also, the keyboard is smaller than I'm used to. When compared to any other around it I could find, the keys were about a half-inch shorter from end (keyslip) to fallboard. I'm sure that made quite a difference in it's playability (at least for me anyway, a pro probably wouldn't have that much of a problem). Ultimately I had to pass on it because of that. The other aspects of the piano seemed just fine though.

A 1980 Mason & Hamlin would have an Aeolian (Wessell, Nickel & Gross) action. Pratt Read was later in the decade. The 1980s were a period of transition for Mason & Hamlin, so the exact date is important.

I'd like to second Sophia's thoughts. The pianos are very good but, to me, they sound nothing like vintage M & H instruments. Nothing like.

I feel that the new pianos must be intended to compete with Steinway, as they have a much bolder, virile and powerful sonority, with virtually nothing of the distinctive, perfumed color of the older instruments.

Your comment made me wonder if the "vintage" Masons had the same "distinctive, perfumed color" when they were NEW. Guess we'll never know for sure.

I've been enjoying the comments here. I don't have enough experience with the vintage Masons (though I own one from the 20's myself) to venture a sound profile. The Burgett instruments I've played have a robust sound: solid, straightforward and appealing; yet I don't think they're trying to sound like S&S. It's true that their designer, Bruce Clark, has made intentional changes to the historical designs.

Karl Watson gets bonus points for me for "perfumed." I like that! Carey's point about newness is also well taken.

Thanks for appreciating the "perfumed" remark. You have hidden depth, esp. for a new music man. I remember that you have a CC but don't recall its vintage.

I did not say that Bruce Clark was building a piano that sounds like a Steinway. I said that it seemed to me that their intent was to compete with the Astoria piano. Somewhere along the way, a decision was made that the very singular and entrancing sonority of the old pianos was no longer viable.

I agree that it may have its limitations, but I prefer and would rather cope with them than to have to live with the typical Steinway and its often bully-boy thugishness. Older Masons have such an infinite color range coupled with profound depth that one could spend a lifetime and never exhaust their riches.

Now, if I were playing the Tschaikowsky Concerto with the Philharmonic, I would definitely want a D in order to come out alive. But, for more normal purposes, I would want a fine Mason or possibly a Chickering every time. The sound is more interesting and flexible.

I also appeciate your description of tone. It is so difficult to describe sound in words. A professor of mine once described the difficulty by saying, "Talking about sound is like dancing about painting."

Geez, I love that quote.

On a different note Karl, you have to meet Joe. You live on the same island, I believe, and you would get along famously as you both know TONS about this subject.

Also, I spoke with George McKinley recently and he sends his best regards.

I love Mason & Hamlins when they are right but like any piano from any age golden or otherwise the difference is in the way the soundboard was built and set up as well the quality of the action build. Mason & Hamlins have always been built like tanks. I have a simply glorious Bb in my clientele from 1978 ish which is simply an amazing instrument.(her comments on my web site) I installed Issac hammer on it 18 years or more ago and it made a huge improvement but then last year we pulled the plate restrung it, changed the front duplex draft angles to reduce string breakage. I installed a new custom balanced action while saving the Isaac hammers. The level of performance went up astronomically. Even I was floored. It has a great board, and from the age every body loves to lambast. I'd love to take this piano to a small concert stage and listen to serious pianists cut loose. Rachmaninoff, Beethoven..watch out. I'm getting excited. My sisters AA from 1951 is sitting right next to me. Awesome piece of work. Original board. Reworked action, new strings, bridges, block etc. Lived at the university of Ask. till 9 years ago. That said & fwiw I have seen Masons from many ages vintages. I have heard BBs that sounded like 7 foot spinets and As and AAs that were amazing when prepped and hammered correctly. Predominately I have seen many pre world war-2 ones with boards so split up as to be largely unrepairable, so be careful about being to enamored with the term golden age. All pianos are amazing machines but machines none the less. Strings degrade as do hammers and felt work. Take Rich Gs. advice any time you may consider an older piano and take a rebuilder to see it and remember it is a machine...and a very old machine which isn't going to be sonorous or glorious in most cases with out significant amounts of copious skillful restoration. Regards to all M & H lovers

All true and wise advice and I subscribe to all of it. I too have heard and played some fine Masons that came out of the Rochester works, BBs mostly and the occasional CC.

I don't believe for a moment that the vintage, Boston-era Masons don't require extensive rebuilding. After all, if the Rochester pianos are in need of it, surely the much, much older Boston instruments should be given stem to stern overhauls.

My point is simply this: that the scale design and general voicing approach of those pianos built, mainly in Boston are, to my ears, some of the greatest pianos ever made, Europe notwithstanding.

Bye the bye, I believe that most, if not all, had WN&G actions from the old Manhattan factory, the same building that the Steinways looted and pillaged after WN&G failed during the Depression. I'm not too crazy about those old actions, but I'm sure that David Stanwood could make them fly nicely.

Thanks for your post Mr. Erwin. It's nice to see something complimentary about the Mason's coming out of Rochester, especially from the 70's and earlier. I have an "A" from 1975 and the tone is wonderful. I was about four months into my search for a 5'8" or larger instrument and getting pretty discouraged about finding anything in my budget which was only $10k or less that sounded halfway decent or wasn't a rebuild project. When I heard the tone for the first time it was unique and for my taste even more richness and depth than the newer pricier piano's I had tested.(Boston's, Kawai's, Hailun's, etc.) My technician is amazed at the life in the soundboard and the sweet, complex tone. I was lucky enough to find a gem but I also have a friend that has the same A model from '71 that also has a beautiful tone. I think factory in Rochester knew how to get the fundamentals (rim, sounboard, plate & scale) right and that M & H's from this era are well worth investigating for the buyer on a tight budget. The action is not spectacular but it's pretty good. I should mention that the only thing it appears to have had done is hammers and strings. My RPT says the pinblock is tight and action is pretty good. I was also lucky enough to find the case in decent cosmetic condition and in satin black which was my preference. There isn't one crack or split anywhere in or around the soundboard, ribs or bridges. You guys that restore and work on piano's for a living know much better than I but I do wish someone out there that might still be around from the Rochester factory could comment on the quality of materials and workmanship that was put into these piano's. Apparently they "got it right" at least some of the time.

Greetings. I an the happy owner of a 2008 Mason & Hamlin BB that was purchased last November as a demo. Mine does not have the Nickel and Gross action however it plays great. I had the opportunity to play a recent one and the action is a little lighter, different font in the M&H logo, soft close fallboard, locking casters and the same amazing sound. I played Fazioli, S&S, Bosendorfer, Schimmel, etc and nothing comes close to it. The sustain is ridiculous and just recently I started collaborating with a violinist and my wife is a flutist and it is a joy to accompany these instruments. The sound is so organic and it never runs out of power. It's very harmonically rich and perhaps a little trickier to tune. I am also a big car fanatic and it reminds of a German (BMW, AUDI) sedan in the way it responds. Very powerful instrument but can be controlled. The piano was prepped to perfection by the dealer and that is EXTREMELY important. The top can get a little thin however it can be improved with proper voicing. The tuning holds quite well (not as well as my old Yamaha C5) but there is no comparison. I had it retrofitted with a touchrail since I thought the action was a touch heavy (personal taste and your opinion may very). The fit a finish is fantastic. The lacquer looks very even and everything aligns perfeclty. It will take a least a year for it to settle and it should improve with time. One small complain is that you can hear the Swwoshing sound of the dampers when the are released in a VERY quiet environment. I have got used to it and it is not a problem. I hope this helps.

I also appeciate your description of tone. It is so difficult to describe sound in words. A professor of mine once described the difficulty by saying, "Talking about sound is like dancing about painting."

Geez, I love that quote.

I thought the quote was, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." That apparently was attributed to Elvis Costello so your quote may be older (and closer to the original).